Is it a right to have Kids you can’t afford!?!

[KN2212]

I am totally fed up of listening to people complain about how broke they are after having kids. Babies and childcare are cripplingly expensive but that’s pretty much common knowledge, right?

I fell out with a long term friend of mine about a year ago. Since the birth of her DD all she did was complain about the situation she’d orchestrated.
Her and her (now ex) partner had no home of their own, low income, high debt and no savings when they decided to go ahead and have a child (though granted had been together for 7 years). The poor boyfriend busted his butt working 13 hour shifts 6 days a week in a call centre whilst they all lived in one cramped room at her parents and she complained he wasn’t doing enough. Due to her crippling shopping debts and inability to hold a job they were never going to make enough to live and knew that pre getting pregnant.

(Other friends are in similar situations, complaining about how they ‘can’t afford to go back to work’ because of childcare costs but equally can’t afford to live if they don’t go back to work!!! Come on and take some responsibility you knew this was going to be your situation.)

Whilst she was complaining over coffee one day about how the benefit system wasn’t giving her enough free money I called her out on her obvious poor planning and asked why she didn’t wait and save pre child. She got very defensive and said that they were never going to be able to afford a child due to their financial situation so why bother waiting?

It just got me thinking really hard, since when did having children become a right? It seemed so clear to her that she deserved to have a child despite not being able to afford one and that the government should now support her because she deserved to have her daughter.
Am I wrong in thinking that having children you can’t support is completely irresponsible and shitty and entitled?

I know a lot of women who want kids but are having to wait and plan and save and do it ‘the right way’ it seems unfair to them. When women like my ex friend do exactly what they want without planning and then hold the government over a barrel saying that their kids don’t have food and clothes. It just sucks like the children shouldn’t have to suffer but the tax payer shouldn’t have to pay for your unfair choices.

To clarify I have empathy for unplanned pregnancy’s no contraception is 100% but that’s not the kind of situation I’m talking about here. I’m talking about planned pregnancies.

[Singlenotsingle]

Well, the only people to suffer as a result of their decision are themselves (and the poor DC of course, who will never be able to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. I wouldn't have much sympathy myself.

[MyNameIsNotSteven]

Well the first example you give doesn't illustrate a couple having children they can't afford. It depicts a man who's working hard to support a woman who can't manage her money. That's a different scenario.

However in general, are you saying that only affluent people who can afford childcare should have children? YABU and transparently judgemental.

[WinterIsComing84]

I think you might get some stick for this... I asked a similar question once and had my arse handed to me.

[LanguageAsAFlower]

So you're blaming women for wanting to have children rather than blaming the society that systematically devalues parenthood and often causes women to have choose between a career or motherhood.

Good.

[Sparklesocks]

I think it’s not always as simple as that, because where do you draw the line? Should only middle class people have kids in that case? Or what if you are doing ok financially when you conceive, but fall into trouble down the line?

Admittedly some people don’t plan their financial situation as well as they maybe should, but I don’t think it’s always clear cut.

[Leontine]

This gets into very dangerous territory of children becoming a status symbol. Realistically most working class people can't really afford to have children but I don't think it's right to deny them.

It almost smacks of eugenics.

[MamaRaisingBoys]

I don’t think things would work out too well if only the wealthy could procreate. Someone who can explain it better than me will be along shortly I expect

[Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar]

Don’t be obtuse, Language, she said nothing of the sort.
Op, I agree; but the Languages will be on you like flies on a cow’s arse, I’m afraid!

[HateIsNotGood]

Good for you OP - hopefully your planning for life system works for you - my 56 years of life has told me "plan all you like - but beware the very thing you haven't planned or thought about will come up and bite you in the ass"

HTH

[LanguageAsAFlower]

Not obtuse. She's saying people should plan and save for years before they have children. When the obvious answer is subsidised/free childcare and actual real flexible working hours for women.

It's not just "working" classes that struggle and I empathise with the mentioned person who thinks "we'll never be able to afford it so why wait"
I was 32 when I met the person I wanted to have children with. Should I have waited risking my fertility until I had a good £25,000 in savings? (Approximately 2 years childcare and a bit of buying things)

[Clairetree1]

if only rich people hd children, who is going to run the country when our generation retires?

Fine, if you don't want your taxes used to care for such children, then lets agree not to spend any tax payers money on them, but I think that gives them total exemption from ever paying tax themselves when they grow up, don't you?

Never mind that we are going to need them to be bus drivers, train drivers, doctors, nurses, dustmen, postmen, hair dressers, shop keepers, bank managers, tv presenters, news readers, vets, icecream sellers, librarians, advisors, physiotherapists, pharmacists, builders, electricians, plumbers, mobile phone designers, ict experts, soldiers, traders, scientists, publishers, journalists, diplomats, bartenders, receptionists, dentists, opticians, taxidrivers, and everything else that you and I need every day of our lives.

[MLMLM]

So you're saying babies are for the elite top 50% only? Do you think women in poor countries shouldn't have kids at all then?

Your don't have to be shit with money or on a low income to struggle with the cost of kids btw. We are above average earners but childcare costs are crazy where we live and while we aren't broke we have to be very careful with what we spend.

YABU

[notdaddycool]

That woman needs to cut back her spending. In general I really get the desire for kids so I don’t question people having one or two and being really tight. I do think you shouldn’t be having 3,4,5+ if you’re hard up.

[Holymolynowayimagreeingwiththa]

Since when did having children become a right?
Since the beginning of time, for all animals, human and non human.
Our bodies are built to be reproductively successful. I understand you are saying people should be financially stable before having children but if you are going to bring rights into it people should not be denied reproduction because of social constructs such as money and the unequal distribution of it.

[eliza456]

Pro creating is a strong natural desire for a majority of people. It is normal to want to have kids. Now why should people who may have tried for years to get into a better position financially, but failed, not be able to do what nature tells them to do?

It may seem unfair to you, but people strive do what makes them happy, and if having children makes them happy then they will do what they can to get there.

[Awwlookatmybabyspider]

I could be wildly wrong. However last time I checked it takes 2 to make a baby. Therefore why all fawny over him yet full of contempt to your friend. You must have had a problem with her to start off with if you were willing to fall out with her over this.
ALso pregnancy lasts almost a year when you think about it. Anything monetary wise good or bad can happen in that time.

[WTBE]

What clairtree said 👏

[Cantrememberthistime123]

Languages your post isn’t coherent.

Too many people have children and expect the government to fund. I’m not a Tory, far from it. I just feel people are too reliant on the state.

Me and dp are certainly not high earners, we both work pretty crappy jobs for pretty rubbish money. We knew this before going into parenthood, but we are both prepared to work and do our bit.

I’m under no illusion we could be made redundant at any point. I think it’s more people’s attitudes that gets me. You want something, go work for it.

I understand that going out to work, for some, isn’t always possible, people’s mental health and situations differ and everyone should be taken on their own merit.

We are not rich, we have to save for treats etc... people just seem to expect something for nothing.

Maybe this is just my experience but it is what I have grown up around and it wears thin

[twattymctwatterson]

I could afford my daughter when I was in a relationship. Together we were pretty comfortable. Didn't plan on him dropping me at 7 weeks pregnant or having to move roles because my manager wouldn't let me reduce my hours. Maybe get pissed off with what passes as a living wage and the prohibitive cost of childcare?

[IdahoJones]

It just got me thinking really hard

Evidence?

[Theunmumsymummy]

I think you're right OP. There's a big difference between being affluent and being able to afford to have children. My mum was a social worker and many of the parents she worked with had planned their children, despite being in no position to support them. But we see having children as a divine right so who cares if the state ends up paying for them?

[Awwlookatmybabyspider]

Therefore op are you implying that those who are not on 2k per week should abort their pregnancies because you clearly think only the rich have the right to breed.
A fetus/child from a poor family has as much right to live as one from an elite family.

[DieAntword]

1.Children are not always a choice.

1. “Afford” can mean a lot of things, some people think if you can’t fund their university education and get them on the housing ladder you’re basically neglecting them and other people think if you can feed them and keep them clean that’s pretty much everything sorted.
   

1. Children are not provided for by the government for the sake of their parents but for the sake of society which needs new workers to be born and raised to replace the workers who retire.

[Snappedandfarted2018]

[PandaPieForTea]

The set up in England (not sure about the rest of the UK) for childcare is poor. Early years education goes hand-in-hand with childcare and we really haven’t got the balance right to enable parents to work and access childcare.

There is a year’s paid maternity leave, but poorly paid for most, then a relatively small tax break for the next 2 years, then finally 15 or 30 hours ‘free’ childcare/education, which is so poorly funded that it isn’t available to all and is rarely free. So there are at least 3 years where working families will struggle with really high childcare costs, often resulting in it not being worthwhile for a parent (usually the mother) to work. Being out of the workplace can then mean it’s hard to break back in. Plus it is harder to find a flexible or PT job than to ask for your existing job to be made PT, so another barrier to women working.

I think most families find having a baby a financial struggle for those early years, everything is stacked against them. Having more than one child and a small age gap must be financially crippling for many.